Military Organization

1. Imperial Guard

The Imperial guards consisted of several distinct units, both cavalry and infantry. They would normally accompany the emperor although there are references to detachments being used by senior generals. Since the emperors, Maurikius and Heraklius, were two of the most active generals during the era of the Maurikian army, it is very likely that some of these units campaigned with the emperors.

a. Scholae/Scholarii

Constantine the Great established a number of units to replace the Praetorian Guard. The main units were identified as Scholae, and first five and later seven units were formed in Constantinople to attend the emperor. All of them were cavalry units of approximately 300-500 troops. Using contemporary Byzantine terminology, they could form one moira. The Scholae had a checkered career with extended periods in which they were ceremonial rather than combat troops.

b. Excubitori/Excubiti

This unit of about 300 troops was formed by the eastern emperor Leo to replace the Scholae in the 5th Century after the latter had become ceremonial troops. (See AHM Jones/DC1)

c. Arithmos (numerus) of Vigiliae/Vigla

Most contemporary sources mention an infantry unit which was tasked with the defence of Constantinople. It may have been assisted by a second unit which guarded the Walls of Anastasius which formed the outer defences of the city. It is often referred to as the Arithmos or Vigla and may have numbered 4000. None of my sources identified when this was raised or whether it would campaign outside Constantinople.

d. Domestici

This was an inner Imperial guard consisting of infantry and cavalry formed during the 4th Century. It was mainly ceremonial by late 6th Century (DC1).

The Cambridge Medieval History refers to epilekta (carefully chosen soldiers) as possibly the same as guard units although I could not find further references in the book. Christodolou also refers to epilekta and suggests that they were the Imperial Guard units (DC1). The name was also used for guard units of the Hellenistic armies. For example, Polybius used it to describe the troops of the Seleucid Silver Shields (Argyraspides) during a military parade at Daphnae in 165 BC.

2. Elite of the field armies

According to most sources, the cavalry were the elite of the army. Even when infantry were part of an army, there is little reference made to them. All of the guard and elite units which are mentioned as serving in the field were cavalry.

a. Bucellarii/Boukellarioi

These were household troops of generals (CMH) or military retainers employed by private individuals (Jones p666). They were employed by generals and when on Imperial service added to army rolls, eventually becoming permanent formations of the army possibly under Maurice or Heraklius (PB1). They were raised by generals to supplement regular forces but were now professional troops. They could be absorbed into government army as was done with the bucellarii of General Priscus in 614 AD after his fall from favour (DC1). They were also called hypaspistai, doruphoroi, and spatharioi (shield, spear and sword bearers) (PB1). The officers were called doruphoroi and others as hypaspistai (Jones p667). The doruphoroi were called amici and hypaspistai were called armigeri, which were the earlier Latin names (see Frank, RI, Scholae Palatinae: The Palace Guards of the Later Roman Empire, Rome 1969). They fought in second line with Optimates and formed the bodyguard for the army commander.

b. Foederati/Phoideratoi

These were recruited from the most warlike contingents of the empire (Goths and Isaurians) (CMH). They accepted both Roman and barbarian recruits (PB1). They were considered barbarian or Romanised ethnikoi (foreign troops) raised by the government and placed in regular units (AHM Jones p666). When on campaign, they consisted of 16 banda in three moirai forming one meros (PB1). They fought in 7-10 ranks with servants or recruits in middle ranks and formed middle of first line of battle (PB1). The usual organization was 2 ranks of lancers, 3 ranks of archers and up to 3 ranks of other weapons (bow or javelin).

c. Optimates

They were drawn from the best of the remaining units (CMH). They may have been drawn from the former Palatinae units (PB2). They were considered superior to Foederatoi and also called ethnikoi, possibly Goths or Lombards (PB1). Ethnikoi were any foreign troops and could also include Huns, Heruls, Slavs, Persians, Armenians. They formed in a single moira commanded by a taxiarch and fought in 5-7 ranks including up to two ranks of servants (PB1). They fought in second line of battle (PB1).

d. Vexillationes

They formed the left wing of the first line (PB1). They were drawn from the former cavalry vexillationes of Roman praesentales armies (PB1). No specific strength was given but may have been equivalent to Illyricanii.

e. Illyricanii/Illyrikani

They formed the right wing of first line (PB1). They fought in 5-9 ranks (PB1). They were either former Illyricani units (DC1) or of the Magister Militum per Illyricum (PB1). They formed a meros of 3 moirai (PB1) and consisted of at least 15 banda of about 6000 (DC1/DC2).

3. Field Army

These were organized into units called numerus (Latin) or arithmos (Greek) and then bandon (German) referring to band or banner, which were similar to former cohortes and vexillationes of Roman army. In literary Greek, these were called tagmata or katalogos (DC1). Units varied in size but 300-500 was the average. Bandon was most common name by 600 AD (DC1). An average of 5-7 banda formed a moira of about 3000. Up to three moirai formed a meros (6000-7000) and three mere formed an army of about 20,000. Armies could be divided into cavalry and infantry commands (magistri equites and peditum). By 600 AD, the composition of a meros was formalised, earlier groupings were done as required (DC1). The units were drawn from the former Roman comitatenses, palatinae and limitanei with most infantry now being garrison troops and the cavalry being the most important part of the mobile army. The distinction between palatinae and comitatenses was minimal (AHM Jones p659). The main distinction was now between local units and units recruited from the best manpower of the empire or foreign troops (AHM Jones p660). Troops generally called stratiotai or Rhomaioistratiotai (Roman soldiers).

Arms and Armour

While this was not initially part of my research, I include comments for those who are interested in what my sources discussed. There has been a great deal of controversy about the main sources, Procopius and the Strategicon, concerning the nature of the arms and armour of the 6th Century Byzantine army. Macdowall, Head, Barker, Christodolou, Heath and others have given varying descriptions of the troops. The cavalry were armed with spear and/or bows. The length of the spear, use of armour for man and horse and the number of dual armed troops have been debated. The infantry were initially similar to Late Roman foot and armed with spears, javelins and darts supported by archers and other skirmishers. The length of spears by 600 AD has also been debated with some arguing that spears were up to 12 feet long (then known as kontarion).

It is difficult to follow the sources is on the subject of weapons and armour. One has to sift through the mix of older Greek military concepts (Hellenistic period before the Roman conquests), contemporary practices and the proposals of the various writers. Some writers mixed the words such that it is difficult to determine whether the infantry spear was long (over 7-8 feet) or short (under seven feet). This is important because wargaming troop definitions are based on the weapons and armour as used.

There is no obvious rationale given for why Roman cavalry were primarily bow armed during the early 6th Century. MacDowall argues that it was the Hunnic influence although Gothic and other German cavalry were recruited (SM). The Romans and Byzantines copied from their neighbours as is evident from the references in the Strategicon, particularly the use of Avar equipment. Curiously, there is little reference to the Persians, although in previous centuries the Romans had borrowed from them. The Sassanian Persians emphasised cavalry which was either bow or lance armed, or dual armed. Given the numerous campaigns against the Persians, it is odd that they are not credited for influencing the Byzantine cavalry. Both armies relied heavily on similar troop types and considered cavalry as the most important component. Several of my sources suggest that Roman cavalry was influenced by Hunnic, Persian and other opponents. The Persians were also influenced by Huns and Romans. Hamblin notes that the Persians trained with bow, spear, sword and mace and were probably regular (WH). Halewood outlines the typical Persian battle formations which are very similar to that of the Strategicon; three formations in the first line supported by a second line with a reserve of guard troops. Persian infantry were relegated to a secondary role as was Byzantine infantry. The similarities are numerous which makes the lack of reference to the Sassanians odd as it would seem either the Byzantines or the Sassanians borrowed heavily from the other.

Even MacDowall has changed his opinion because of more recent research. " I am no longer so convinced that the Huns were primarily responsible for the conversion to horse archers in the Roman Army. I have held this view in the past probably because of my interest in Aetius and my concentration on Western armies and campaigns.

The more I look eastwards the more I believe that while the Huns may have been an influencing factor, the Persians surely had a greater influence. We do not really know what 5th Century Roman armies looked like: probably usually a majority of Germanic influenced spear-armed troops with some Hun and Persian influenced horse archers. Aetius had little or no influence in the East and so is unlikely to have overseen a change to primarily bow armed troops there and it was only in the East where the "typical" Roman soldier evolved from close fighting infantryman to armoured horse archer. Long contact and conflict with the Persians must surely have been the greatest factor at play." (Taken from private correspondence).

Boss argues that Roman cavalry in Justinian's armies showed Persian, Sarmatian and Hunnic influences. Although Gothic recruits would have been lancers. (See pg 46). He quotes Procopius (The Persian War I I 8ff) "But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and at the shoulder a sort of small shield without a grip, such as to cover the region of the face and neck. They are expert horsemen and are able without difficulty to direct and to shoot their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight." Boss concludes: "The key Roman troop type is therefore an armoured horse archer who can both skirmish and fight hand to hand."

Cavalry MacDowall agrees with Barker (Slingshot #120) in attributing the confusion about cavalry arms in the Strategicon to an ongoing evolution. We are shown "past practice, a proposed idea, and mixed up throughout, the actual practice of the day (which seems to have been far from uniform)" (SM). The Strategicon first describes cavalry as dual armed which echoes back to the period of Bellisarius and Narses as presented by Procopius with some troops carrying a spear and bow. Then the author describes ideal equipment which are similar to Avar arms and equipment, who are often considered as dual armed with 12 foot lance and bow.

Later the author describes a unit with two lance armed ranks supported by two bow armed ranks and then a varying number of ranks with the last two bow armed (Book 3). The author recommends a formation of two battle lines with units varying in depth from five to eight or ten ranks. The number of ranks is dependent on the quality of the troops with elite units having fewer ranks as mentioned above. MacDowall suggests that the Byzantine cavalry had changed in armament and battle formation during the wars of the 6th Century. Most were bow armed supported by elite dual armed units (bucellarii) and spear or lance armed units (foederati, mainly Germans). Later the units were mixed as the bucellarii and foederati were amalgamated into the standing army to create units of spear/lance armed front ranks supported by bow armed rear ranks.

Christodolou has the kavalarii (from the Latin Caballus - horse) divided into kontaria (spearmen or lancers) and toxotai (archers)(DC2). These names are used throughout the Srategicon and suggest that the cavalry were not dual armed as a practice but formations were mixed normally. He quotes from Book 2 Chapter 2 describing the cavalry formation as 2 ranks of spear supported by 2 of bow or javelin armed troops and finally a spear armed file closer. MacDowall also describes this formation in his article. Javelins were recommended for soldiers in the support ranks if not trained as toxotai.

In summary, each unit consisted of at least three ranks of kontaria and two or more or toxotai or javelin-armed troops. The formation in Book 2 is the minimum depth and that of Book 3 is the maximum as recommended in the Strategicon. Furthermore, servants and new recruits could be added to units to provide the extra depth to increase a formation to the maximum of 10 ranks.

Following these interpretations of the Strategicon, cavalry are best represented as in the army list with front rank element of Cv (S) and rear rank of CV (O) together representing a bandon, tagma or katalogos of 300-500 men. DBM allowance for a second supporting rank allows the almost equal numbers of kontaria and toxotai (or others) to be clearly depicted. Others rules also allow for a supporting rank of figures so it is worthwhile having the lancers and archers represented.

The one exception in the army list is the Optimates/Optimati. These are equally be depicted as CV (S) in a single rank to reflect their smaller formation (one moira) or as the other cavalry in two ranks. described as Irr Kn (F) being Goths and similar Germans armed in their native style. This contradicts other sources which indicate that they were recruited from amongst the more warlike subjects of the empire. I suggest that they could Infantry Barker (PB1) indicates that skoutatoi were most often depicted with short spear and large shields. In the army list, they are described as throwing their spears in the attack before fighting with swords and retained their spears to thrust when attacked by cavalry.

In the DBM, they are thus treated as degenerate legionaries in List 4. Early Byzantine and List 117. Maurikian Byzantine. In List 117, they are described as equipped with big shields, spears, swords and sometimes lead weighted darts. The nominal depth was 16 ranks, although Book 12 Chapter 7 of Strategicon makes it plain that the normal combat depth was 8 ranks when resisting cavalry and 4 when attacking. In defence, the first 2 ranks fixed their spear butts in the ground while the remainder thrust and threw their spears overhead. In attack , all threw their spears, then fought with their swords. Bow armed psiloi supported the skoutatoi-- an 8 rank formation supported by 2 ranks of psiloi and a 4 rank by 1 of psiloi.

Christodolou (Slingshot No.118) wrote that skoutatoi were armed with spear, dart, sling and shield. Missile weapons also used included martiobarbuli (dart-Latin), verutum (javelin-Latin) and maurikia (javelin named after Maurikius). The spear was shorter than cavalry spears in the section of the Strategicon which covers fighting against the Slavs; however, no mention is made of the spear length and the artistic evidence suggests a short spear about 6-7 feet. Tactics against cavalry were similar to Roman tactics (similar to what Barker describes in the army lists). He suggests that the skoutatoi were spear-armed swordsman.

Boss in the Montvert book states "It is of interest to note that Procopius always uses the word doru to describe cavalry spears but uses the word doration, a diminutive [sic] form, to describe infantry spears. This clearly indicates that the cavalry weapon was longer." (See pg 47) Infantry are still much like the Later Romans; armoured in the front ranks and unarmoured in back. Archers were often attached to rear of unit for extra firepower. Armoured infantry were now called antesignani. They have ankle-length mail coats and reinforced helmets. (See pg 50) This last troop type may be a change influenced by success of dismounted cavalry at Taginae in 552 AD.

Using DBM, the skoutatoi are represented as Blade (Inferior). DBM describes Blade (Inferior) as generally equipped as Bd (Ordinary) but less confident or inadequately trained. Barker does state that according to Strategicon, infantry do not seem to have been as rigorously trained as cavalry (PB1).

Boss refers to the Strategikon a lot too when describing the infantry. He also states that Belisarius was frequently let down by his infantry around Rome; failing to support the cavalry at important moments and demonstrating a lack of discipline. Although a display of "desperate valour" by one unit of infantry did allow the rest of them to get to the Salarian Gate when charged by Goths (p.15). Infantry were now a firebase to support the cavalry. Procopius notes that the Goth infantry at Taginae "did not open intervals to receive them [the Gothic cavalry] nor stand fast to rescue them" so presumably the Roman infantry could (p.52). This is similar to descriptions of Byzantine infantry actions as mentioned in later military treatises (again see Dennis).

One could also argue for Bd (O) for veterans and infantry of the Obsequium (prasentales). In that the skoutatoi were partially armoured close formation troops with missiles as well as sword and shield, according to the above interpretations. The definition depends on whether Byzantine skoutatoi of this period were well trained. Given that Heraklius spent considerable time training his troops before embarking on his last campaigns against the Persians, this is possible. The quality of troops could have fluctuated depending on morale, training and other factors. This is likely for much of the period, considering the numerous defeats inflicted by Lombards, Avars, Persians and Arabs.

There is also the possibility that the skoutatoi were armed with long spears (albeit shorter than the cavalry spear according to the Strategicon). This is based on the re-arming of the infantry following the Battle of Taginae during which the Byzantine commander, Narses, dismounted his Lombard and other foederati, who were armed with long spears or lances. The WRG 6th Edition army list allow the skoutatoi to be armed either with javelin/light spear or long thrusting spear to reflect this change. Barker and Head also describe the skoutatoi as armed with a 12 foot spear in their respective WRG books. This is contrary to the other sources already mentioned, but possible as one other contemporary source describes the skoutatoi as armed with long spears. See The Anonymous Byzantine Treatise On Strategy (in Dennis' book), which mentions the length of infantry spears in Chapter 16. These were long spears or pikes with up to four ranks projecting forward. If one considers the length of the modern throwing javelin, it is quiet possible that a long spear could be thrown or thrust as required.

Simon MacDowall suggested a similar option. "I think that Byzantine infantry of this time are better represented by a spearmen category because of their role as defensive steady blocks around which the cavalry operated. They seem to have no offensive role or capability at all and so whatever they actually carried, their wargames classification need to represent a static force able to hold off enemy cavalry but ineffective in taking any offensive action." (Taken from private correspondence).

Tactical Deployment and Tabletop Representation

According to most of the sources, the main field army formed two lines of cavalry. In the first, there were the Illyricanii, Foederati and Vexillationes which could total 18-21,000 cavalry if all were at full strength. This was supported by a second line of the Optimates, Bucellarii and remaining cavalry units, which was probably a smaller line because of the single moira of Optimates and lack of specific figures for the remaining cavalry units.

There is no mention of infantry role in the articles listed below, although its role is covered in the Strategicon and Procopius described infantry in the armies

I would recommend three commands with each split into two lines. The first line would comprise of Cv (S) supported by Cv (O). The second line could be the same with the option of using Kn (F) for the Optimates or a line formed of infantry. The infantry can be either Blade or Spear with Psiloi as supports. Additional Psiloi or Bowmen can be deployed to operate in rough or difficult areas. Auxiliary troops can include LH representing Hun or similar cavalry providing a skirmishing force and infantry as Auxilia or Psiloi.

The Strategicon offers an ideal army which was probably similar to that used by Maurikius and Heraklius in their campaigns. These would have been composed of the best available troops since the emperor was commanding. It is quite likely that provincial and other armies were composed of fewer guard and elite units (and be of course smaller). One other suggestion is to read about the various battles and campaigns and then use the specific orders of battle from which to develop your own tabletop army.

I shall be using an army based on the Strategicon. It will include the various elite units mentioned above. I have only found a few comments about the use of colours with red and blue being popular. I shall use colours to identify the various units and may be even copy some of the Later Roman shield patterns as illustrated in books by Barker and MacDowall. I have a postage stamp which will be used as the army standard. This is of Mary holding a baby Jesus which seems suitable as a religious standard (Our Lady of Blacharnae). I decided to use a stand of one Cv (S) and one Cv (O) to represent each moira and a maximum of three moirai for each meros. This would allow for a maximum of 18 elements in the front line (Vexillatones, Foederati and Illyricani) and 14 in the second (as the Optimates had a single moira) (Bucellarii, Optimates and remaining cavalry units). A contingent of Huns will be added to provide a skirmishing force. Alternatively, infantry could replace some of the cavalry.

The Themes

This is added to give some more examples of the confusion when trying to research this army.

It was during the period covered by this army that the theme system was founded. This was originally based on the territory assigned to the main components of the military. There has been debate over which emperor formed the first themes, which were the territorial areas assigned to specific military formations. Some historians argue that Heraklius began the process and assigned specific areas to the existing major formations of the military in which the soldiers were given land as part payment for military service.

The themes are often seen as the successor system to the limitanei of the Later Roman period. The land grants became universal for all military rather than being given to the border (limitanei) troops. Thus the core territory of the empire provided land for the most important military forces of what had been the mobile armies. The first themes can be identified with their original garrison because of the similarity in name. Credit is given to Heraklius for this innovation because of his need to reorganise the military to oppose the threats of Avar invasions in the Balkans and Sassanian Persian invasions of the Asian and African provinces. Several of my sources also suggested that he was the true author of the Strategicon rather than Maurikius; however, both emperors carried out reforms to the military so could have authored the treatise. The lack of detailed contemporary sources has so far hindered the clarification of the authorship of the most important military text and the development of the themes.

Sources

Barker, Phil Army in Strategicon Slingshot No. 120 Jul 85 pp 32-34

(PB1)
Barker, Phil Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (WRG 1981)
Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 Byzantine Empire (available from the Cyprus American Archeological Research Institute-CAARI located in Nicosia, Cyprus where I live)
Christodolou, D. Byzantine Compexities II Slingshot No. 147 Jan 90 pp 19-23 (DC1)
Christodolou, D. Maurikian Army Slingshot No. 116-118 (3 part article) (DC2)
Dennis GT Three Byzantine Military Treatises Dumbarton Oaks Texts Nine Washington DC 1985
Halewood, P. Heirs of the Achaemenids (multi-part article) various Slingshot 1996-97
Hamblin, Wm. Maurician Drill Slingshot No. 118 Mar 85 pp23-24 (WH)
Hamblin, Wm. Sassanian Military Science Slingshot No. 117-118 Jan & Mar 85
Head, D. Procopius on Cavalry Slingshot No. 118 Mar 85 pp12-14 (DH)
Heath, I. Armies of the Dark Ages 600-1066 (WRG 1981)
Jones, AHM The Later Roman Empire 284-602 Vol 1 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma, 1964
MacDowall, S. East Roman Cavalry Slingshot No. 128 Nov 86 pp14-16 (SM)
MacDowall, S. Later Roman Infantryman Osprey Warrior Series 1994
MacDowall, S. Later Roman Cavalryman Osprey Warrior Series 1995
Nicolle, D. Sassanian Armies Montvert Publications 1996
Sye, J. Aetius and the Origins of the Late Roman Armoured Horse Archer Slingshot No. 193 Sep 97

More Research

Researching A Maurikian Byzantine Army: Introduction
Researching A Maurikian Byzantine Army: Army Organization
Byzantine Army Composition (Saga 64)
Byzantine Skoutatoi Composition (Saga 55)